I have a DataFrame whose rows provide a value of one feature at one time. Times are identified by the time column (there's about 1000000 distinct times). Features are identified by the feature column (there's a few dozen features). There's at most one row for any combination of feature and time. At each time, only some of the features are available; the only exception is feature 0 which is available at all times. I'd like to add to that DataFrame a column that shows the value of the feature 0 at that time. Is there a reasonably fast way to do it?
For example, let's say I have
df = pd.DataFrame({
'time': [1,1,2,2,2,3,3],
'feature': [1,0,0,2,4,3,0],
'value':[1,2,3,4,5,6,7],
})
I want to add a column that contains [2,2,3,3,3,7,7].
I tried to use groupby and boolean indexing but no luck.
I'd like to add to that DataFrame a column that shows the value of the feature 0 at that time. Is there a reasonably fast way to do it?
I think that a groupby (which is quite an expensive operation) is an overkill for this. Try a merge with the values only of the 0 feature:
>>> pd.merge(
df,
df[df.feature == 0].drop('feature', axis=1).rename(columns={'value': 'value_0'}))
feature time value value_0
0 1 1 1 2
1 0 1 2 2
2 0 2 3 3
3 2 2 4 3
4 4 2 5 3
5 3 3 6 7
6 0 3 7 7
Edit
Per #jezrael's request, here is a timing test:
import pandas as pd
m = 10000
df = pd.DataFrame({
'time': range(m / 2) + range(m / 2),
'feature': range(m / 2) + [0] * (m / 2),
'value': range(m),
})
On this input, #jezrael's solution takes 396 ms, whereas mine takes 4.03 ms.
If you'd like to drop the zero rows and add them as a separate column (slightly different than your original request), you could do the following:
# Create initial dataframe.
df = pd.DataFrame({
'time': [1,1,2,2,2,3,3],
'feature': [1,0,0,2,4,3,0],
'value':[1,2,3,4,5,6,7],
})
# Set the index to 'time'
df = df.set_index('time')
# Join the zero feature value to the non-zero feature rows.
>>> df.loc[df.feature > 0, :].join(df.loc[df.feature == 0, 'value'], rsuffix='_feature_0')
feature value value_feature_0
time
1 1 1 2
2 2 4 3
2 4 5 3
3 3 6 7
You can set_index from column value and then groupby with transform idxmin.
This solution works, if the value 0 in column feature is min.
df = df.set_index('value')
df['diff'] = df.groupby('time')['feature'].transform('idxmin')
print df.reset_index()
value feature time diff
0 1 1 1 2
1 2 0 1 2
2 3 0 2 3
3 4 2 2 3
4 5 4 2 3
5 6 3 3 7
6 7 0 3 7
Related
I am working with a pandas dataframe where I have the following two columns: "personID" and "points". I would like to create a third variable ("localMin") which will store the minimum value of the column "points" at each point in the dataframe as compared with all previous values in the "points" column for each personID (see image below).
Does anyone have an idea how to achieve this most efficiently? I have approached this problem using shift() with different period sizes, but of course, shift is sensitive to variations in the sequence and doesn't always produce the output I would expect.
Thank you in advance!
Use groupby.cummin:
df['localMin'] = df.groupby('personID')['points'].cummin()
Example:
df = pd.DataFrame({'personID': list('AAAAAABBBBBB'),
'points': [3,4,2,6,1,2,4,3,1,2,6,1]
})
df['localMin'] = df.groupby('personID')['points'].cummin()
output:
personID points localMin
0 A 3 3
1 A 4 3
2 A 2 2
3 A 6 2
4 A 1 1
5 A 2 1
6 B 4 4
7 B 3 3
8 B 1 1
9 B 2 1
10 B 6 1
11 B 1 1
I'm trying to create a dataframe in Pandas that has two variables ("date" and "time_of_day" where "date" is 120 observations long with 30 days (each day has four observations: 1,1,1,1; 2,2,2,2; etc.) and then the second variable "time_of_day) repeats 30 times with values of 1,2,3,4.
The closest I found to this question was here: How to create a series of numbers using Pandas in Python, which got me the below code, but I'm receiving an error that it must be a 1-dimensional array.
df = pd.DataFrame({'date': np.tile([pd.Series(range(1,31))],4), 'time_of_day': pd.Series(np.tile([1, 2, 3, 4],30 ))})
So the final dataframe would look something like
date
time_of_day
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
Thanks much!
you need once np.repeat and once np.tile
df = pd.DataFrame({'date': np.repeat(range(1,31),4),
'time_of_day': np.tile([1, 2, 3, 4],30)})
print(df.head(10))
date time_of_day
0 1 1
1 1 2
2 1 3
3 1 4
4 2 1
5 2 2
6 2 3
7 2 4
8 3 1
9 3 2
or you could use pd.MultiIndex.from_product, same result.
df = (
pd.MultiIndex.from_product([range(1,31), range(1,5)],
names=['date','time_of_day'])
.to_frame(index=False)
)
or product from itertools
from itertools import product
df = pd.DataFrame(product(range(1,31), range(1,5)), columns=['date','time_of_day'])
New feature in merge cross
out = pd.DataFrame(range(1,31)).merge(pd.DataFrame([1, 2, 3, 4]),how='cross')
Let's assume the input dataset:
test1 = [[0,7,50], [0,3,51], [0,3,45], [1,5,50],[1,0,50],[2,6,50]]
df_test = pd.DataFrame(test1, columns=['A','B','C'])
that corresponds to:
A B C
0 0 7 50
1 0 3 51
2 0 3 45
3 1 5 50
4 1 0 50
5 2 6 50
I would like to obtain the a dataset grouped by 'A', together with the most common value for 'B' in each group, and the occurrences of that value:
A most_freq freq
0 3 2
1 5 1
2 6 1
I can obtain the first 2 columns with:
grouped = df_test.groupby("A")
out_df = pd.DataFrame(index=grouped.groups.keys())
out_df['most_freq'] = df_test.groupby('A')['B'].apply(lambda x: x.value_counts().idxmax())
but I am having problems the last column.
Also: is there a faster way that doesn't involve 'apply'? This solution doesn't scale well with lager inputs (I also tried dask).
Thanks a lot!
Use SeriesGroupBy.value_counts which sorting by default, so then add DataFrame.drop_duplicates for top values after Series.reset_index:
df = (df_test.groupby('A')['B']
.value_counts()
.rename_axis(['A','most_freq'])
.reset_index(name='freq')
.drop_duplicates('A'))
print (df)
A most_freq freq
0 0 3 2
2 1 0 1
4 2 6 1
Suppose I have pandas DataFrame like this:
df = pd.DataFrame({'id':[1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,4], 'value':[1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,1]})
which looks like:
id value
0 1 1
1 1 2
2 1 3
3 2 1
4 2 2
5 2 3
6 2 4
7 3 1
8 4 1
I want to get a new DataFrame with top 2 records for each id, like this:
id value
0 1 1
1 1 2
3 2 1
4 2 2
7 3 1
8 4 1
I can do it with numbering records within group after groupby:
dfN = df.groupby('id').apply(lambda x:x['value'].reset_index()).reset_index()
which looks like:
id level_1 index value
0 1 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 2
2 1 2 2 3
3 2 0 3 1
4 2 1 4 2
5 2 2 5 3
6 2 3 6 4
7 3 0 7 1
8 4 0 8 1
then for the desired output:
dfN[dfN['level_1'] <= 1][['id', 'value']]
Output:
id value
0 1 1
1 1 2
3 2 1
4 2 2
7 3 1
8 4 1
But is there more effective/elegant approach to do this? And also is there more elegant approach to number records within each group (like SQL window function row_number()).
Did you try
df.groupby('id').head(2)
Output generated:
id value
id
1 0 1 1
1 1 2
2 3 2 1
4 2 2
3 7 3 1
4 8 4 1
(Keep in mind that you might need to order/sort before, depending on your data)
EDIT: As mentioned by the questioner, use
df.groupby('id').head(2).reset_index(drop=True)
to remove the MultiIndex and flatten the results:
id value
0 1 1
1 1 2
2 2 1
3 2 2
4 3 1
5 4 1
Since 0.14.1, you can now do nlargest and nsmallest on a groupby object:
In [23]: df.groupby('id')['value'].nlargest(2)
Out[23]:
id
1 2 3
1 2
2 6 4
5 3
3 7 1
4 8 1
dtype: int64
There's a slight weirdness that you get the original index in there as well, but this might be really useful depending on what your original index was.
If you're not interested in it, you can do .reset_index(level=1, drop=True) to get rid of it altogether.
(Note: From 0.17.1 you'll be able to do this on a DataFrameGroupBy too but for now it only works with Series and SeriesGroupBy.)
Sometimes sorting the whole data ahead is very time consuming.
We can groupby first and doing topk for each group:
g = df.groupby(['id']).apply(lambda x: x.nlargest(topk,['value'])).reset_index(drop=True)
df.groupby('id').apply(lambda x : x.sort_values(by = 'value', ascending = False).head(2).reset_index(drop = True))
Here sort values ascending false gives similar to nlargest and True gives similar to nsmallest.
The value inside the head is the same as the value we give inside nlargest to get the number of values to display for each group.
reset_index is optional and not necessary.
This works for duplicated values
If you have duplicated values in top-n values, and want only unique values, you can do like this:
import pandas as pd
ifile = "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bhishanpdl/Shared/master/data/twitter_employee.tsv"
df = pd.read_csv(ifile,delimiter='\t')
print(df.query("department == 'Audit'")[['id','first_name','last_name','department','salary']])
id first_name last_name department salary
24 12 Shandler Bing Audit 110000
25 14 Jason Tom Audit 100000
26 16 Celine Anston Audit 100000
27 15 Michale Jackson Audit 70000
If we do not remove duplicates, for the audit department we get top 3 salaries as 110k,100k and 100k.
If we want to have not-duplicated salaries per each department, we can do this:
(df.groupby('department')['salary']
.apply(lambda ser: ser.drop_duplicates().nlargest(3))
.droplevel(level=1)
.sort_index()
.reset_index()
)
This gives
department salary
0 Audit 110000
1 Audit 100000
2 Audit 70000
3 Management 250000
4 Management 200000
5 Management 150000
6 Sales 220000
7 Sales 200000
8 Sales 150000
To get the first N rows of each group, another way is via groupby().nth[:N]. The outcome of this call is the same as groupby().head(N). For example, for the top-2 rows for each id, call:
N = 2
df1 = df.groupby('id', as_index=False).nth[:N]
To get the largest N values of each group, I suggest two approaches.
First sort by "id" and "value" (make sure to sort "id" in ascending order and "value" in descending order by using the ascending parameter appropriately) and then call groupby().nth[].
N = 2
df1 = df.sort_values(by=['id', 'value'], ascending=[True, False])
df1 = df1.groupby('id', as_index=False).nth[:N]
Another approach is to rank the values of each group and filter using these ranks.
# for the entire rows
N = 2
msk = df.groupby('id')['value'].rank(method='first', ascending=False) <= N
df1 = df[msk]
# for specific column rows
df1 = df.loc[msk, 'value']
Both of these are much faster than groupby().apply() and groupby().nlargest() calls as suggested in the other answers on here(1, 2, 3). On a sample with 100k rows and 8000 groups, a %timeit test showed that it was 24-150 times faster than those solutions.
Also, instead of slicing, you can also pass a list/tuple/range to a .nth() call:
df.groupby('id', as_index=False).nth([0,1])
# doesn't even have to be consecutive
# the following returns 1st and 3rd row of each id
df.groupby('id', as_index=False).nth([0,2])
When using groupby(), how can I create a DataFrame with a new column containing an index of the group number, similar to dplyr::group_indices in R. For example, if I have
>>> df=pd.DataFrame({'a':[1,1,1,2,2,2],'b':[1,1,2,1,1,2]})
>>> df
a b
0 1 1
1 1 1
2 1 2
3 2 1
4 2 1
5 2 2
How can I get a DataFrame like
a b idx
0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2
3 2 1 3
4 2 1 3
5 2 2 4
(the order of the idx indexes doesn't matter)
Here is the solution using ngroup (available as of pandas 0.20.2) from a comment above by Constantino.
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame({'a':[1,1,1,2,2,2],'b':[1,1,2,1,1,2]})
df['idx'] = df.groupby(['a', 'b']).ngroup()
df
a b idx
0 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
2 1 2 1
3 2 1 2
4 2 1 2
5 2 2 3
Here's a concise way using drop_duplicates and merge to get a unique identifier.
group_vars = ['a','b']
df.merge( df.drop_duplicates( group_vars ).reset_index(), on=group_vars )
a b index
0 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
2 1 2 2
3 2 1 3
4 2 1 3
5 2 2 5
The identifier in this case goes 0,2,3,5 (just a residual of original index) but this could be easily changed to 0,1,2,3 with an additional reset_index(drop=True).
Update: Newer versions of pandas (0.20.2) offer a simpler way to do this with the ngroup method as noted in a comment to the question above by #Constantino and a subsequent answer by #CalumYou. I'll leave this here as an alternate approach but ngroup seems like the better way to do this in most cases.
A simple way to do that would be to concatenate your grouping columns (so that each combination of their values represents a uniquely distinct element), then convert it to a pandas Categorical and keep only its labels:
df['idx'] = pd.Categorical(df['a'].astype(str) + '_' + df['b'].astype(str)).codes
df
a b idx
0 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
2 1 2 1
3 2 1 2
4 2 1 2
5 2 2 3
Edit: changed labels properties to codes as the former seem to be deprecated
Edit2: Added a separator as suggested by Authman Apatira
Definetely not the most straightforward solution, but here is what I would do (comments in the code):
df=pd.DataFrame({'a':[1,1,1,2,2,2],'b':[1,1,2,1,1,2]})
#create a dummy grouper id by just joining desired rows
df["idx"] = df[["a","b"]].astype(str).apply(lambda x: "".join(x),axis=1)
print df
That would generate an unique idx for each combination of a and b.
a b idx
0 1 1 11
1 1 1 11
2 1 2 12
3 2 1 21
4 2 1 21
5 2 2 22
But this is still a rather silly index (think about some more complex values in columns a and b. So let's clear the index:
# create a dictionary of dummy group_ids and their index-wise representation
dict_idx = dict(enumerate(set(df["idx"])))
# switch keys and values, so you can use dict in .replace method
dict_idx = {y:x for x,y in dict_idx.iteritems()}
#replace values with the generated dict
df["idx"].replace(dict_idx,inplace=True)
print df
That would produce the desired output:
a b idx
0 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
2 1 2 1
3 2 1 2
4 2 1 2
5 2 2 3
A way that I believe is faster than the current accepted answer by about an order of magnitude (timing results below):
def create_index_usingduplicated(df, grouping_cols=['a', 'b']):
df.sort_values(grouping_cols, inplace=True)
# You could do the following three lines in one, I just thought
# this would be clearer as an explanation of what's going on:
duplicated = df.duplicated(subset=grouping_cols, keep='first')
new_group = ~duplicated
return new_group.cumsum()
Timing results:
a = np.random.randint(0, 1000, size=int(1e5))
b = np.random.randint(0, 1000, size=int(1e5))
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': a, 'b': b})
In [6]: %timeit df['idx'] = pd.Categorical(df['a'].astype(str) + df['b'].astype(str)).codes
1 loop, best of 3: 375 ms per loop
In [7]: %timeit df['idx'] = create_index_usingduplicated(df, grouping_cols=['a', 'b'])
100 loops, best of 3: 17.7 ms per loop
I'm not sure this is such a trivial problem. Here is a somewhat convoluted solution that first sorts the grouping columns and then checks whether each row is different than the previous row and if so accumulates by 1. Check further below for an answer with string data.
df.sort_values(['a', 'b']).diff().fillna(0).ne(0).any(1).cumsum().add(1)
Output
0 1
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 3
5 4
dtype: int64
So breaking this up into steps, lets see the output of df.sort_values(['a', 'b']).diff().fillna(0) which checks if each row is different than the previous row. Any non-zero entry indicates a new group.
a b
0 0.0 0.0
1 0.0 0.0
2 0.0 1.0
3 1.0 -1.0
4 0.0 0.0
5 0.0 1.0
A new group only need to have a single column different so this is what .ne(0).any(1) checks - not equal to 0 for any of the columns. And then just a cumulative sum to keep track of the groups.
Answer for columns as strings
#create fake data and sort it
df=pd.DataFrame({'a':list('aabbaccdc'),'b':list('aabaacddd')})
df1 = df.sort_values(['a', 'b'])
output of df1
a b
0 a a
1 a a
4 a a
3 b a
2 b b
5 c c
6 c d
8 c d
7 d d
Take similar approach by checking if group has changed
df1.ne(df1.shift().bfill()).any(1).cumsum().add(1)
0 1
1 1
4 1
3 2
2 3
5 4
6 5
8 5
7 6